After reading the two diffrent essays about racial profiling, it is pretty obvious that racial profiling will stop many terrorists. They also pointed out that many people's rights would be violated in the process. In my opinion i think that is a cost that the country needs to get over. The way i see it, we can let people fly without racial profiling and all it takes is one time for thousands of to die as we all know. We have to protect our whole country for that one attack even if it means falsely accusing certian people. It is our governments job to protect our country and if they let people go through with the possibility that the could be a terrorist then they arn't doing their job right.
There is no easy answer or solution to how to balance freedom and security. Obviously if you lean too far in one direction or another, certain founding aspects we have created start to be lost. In my opinion, I think that racial profiling can be used, but not as the sole way to root out threats. In one of the essays, it was proposed that suspicious behavior should be the first sign, and then all other types of profiling, including racially, would be to follow. I think that this method would allow for the best balance of using information that we know to target terrorists, while still being cautious of peoples' civil rights. If people are not engaging in suspicious behavior, there will be no reason to target them. However, as soon as someone does something that draws attention to them, their race, age, national origin, and would all be factors in deciding if authorities should take the next step. Obviously some people would slip through the cracks this way, and some people would be falsely accused, but I think that this is the best way between to extremes. -McKenzie
It's tough to know what the best solution would be to terrorism as we haven't developed a system that is fairly affective yet. After reading the second essay though, I was persuaded to look in the direction of national origin. I think this would be the most affective system in part because national origin identifies many features or characteristics that we're looking for. I don't know if this system could be technology based but I think it could be pulled off with a well trained staff. Airport security cannot be loosely trained as this is the whole point of their job, which is to look for the red flags. If the staff can be trained to look for things like language, certain clothing, and behavior that pertain to the Islamic extremists that usually have been the terrorists, then that would be ideal. It's affective to look for these extremist qualities because their beliefs and followings are what usually make them do these terror acts. At the same time, we also have to be aware that there are terrorists out there that aren't Islamic extremists. They could just be hired by a certain group to deceive security. For these situations, security should be trained to look for suspicious behavior more so because the person likely wouldn't be used to the task and therefore might slip up. If we can achieve these goals for smarter security then I believe that it would be an affective system to combat terrorism.
I completely agree with you. I definitely think using national origin would be the best way to go because of all the reasons you stated in your post. However, I also think we should use racial profiling with national origin because some terrorists are "of Middle Eastern appearance." Although racial profiling does violate people's rights, it is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our country.
I agree with you both here, I think it comes down to a choice between safety and rights. As long as we do it professionally and politely I think a little extra time in customs is a small price to pay if it means the safety of a much larger group. National origin will not be offending American citizens just because they look "of middle eastern appearance". In places like Europe this is a common thing, i think we are behind the rest of the world here. Chris Darroch
I feel this topic is so controversial because we all want to feel protected living in our own country, yet in order to do so, the government may have to take away some of the very freedoms it stands for. In my opinion we should not use racial profiling as a "step in security check lines". I feel this way because 1. it completely violates the civil liberties of the parties involved 2. it slows down the system for everyone else 3. it will inevitably end up classifying people who may almost appear "OMEA", but really are not 4. Even though it's supposed to make people feel safer, I think it will make them more paranoid and racist towards this origin of people. With this said, I feel that the current system in place works sufficiently well. It is computer run, therefore not wasting the resources of a human work force, and it fairly successful. Sure, every time you fly there is a minuscule risk of there being a terrorist aboard. Just as every time you drive, go to a restaurant, visit another country, you can be running the same risk.
After reading both essays, I think racial profiling will prevent further terrorist attacks. I think profiling coupled with National Origin could prove to be an effective tactic. As for the infringement on people's rights, that is just something people are not used to. Flyers are not used to waiting in slower security lines when before 9/11 they could walk through security in no time at all. But now when you go, it takes some time to go through. It is not like when TSA asks you to open your bag their suspecting you of being a terrorist, they are just doing their job in ensuring the safety of all flyers and trying to prevent another underpants bomber. The use of a National Origins type process would help combat terrorism because it aspects of it are used today. When going through security the people verifying the ticket sometimes ask "why are you going" if the place is not visited often. This is simply a matter of giving people a sense of security when flying, a sense of security that was taken from the American people after 9/11
Both essays present clear benefits and detriments to racial profiling. However, the facts shown towards the ineffectiveness of racial profiling seem too overwhelming for me to be in support of it. In recent times, most fail to realize that terrorists can come in all shapes and sizes. Racial profiling may help quench the hysteria created from the attacks on 9/11, but in actuality, it is wasting the time and destroying the faith of most law-abiding ‘OMEA’ peoples. I feel that a better use of time would be towards developing a better ‘CAPS’ (Computer Aided Passenger Screening) system. ‘CAPS’ (with some more development and fine tuning) has the potential to be much more effective and objective in screening and thus, would not violate the rights of most average citizens.
Bottom line: Do I think profiling/screening should be eliminated completely? No. However, I feel the racial bias needs to be phased out of it.
I think we should use a couple different methods to prevent terrorist attacks. For instance, I think racial profiling should only be used if it is combined with profiling based on national origin. Screening people based solely on race not only makes the system look very bad (since many people’s rights will be violated in the process), but it is also only somewhat effective considering the fact that not all Middle Eastern looking people are terrorists and not all terrorists are "of Middle Eastern appearance." If we screen people who are coming from places that harbor terrorists and screen people who look Middle Eastern, we would probably find more terrorists than if we only screened people of Middle Eastern appearance, since terrorists are most likely coming from an area of the world in which terrorist groups assemble to make plans and some terrorists do happen to be of Middle Eastern appearance. I think we should try a couple different methods of profiling so we can more accurately decide which method(s) is/are the most effective and which is/are the least effective. -Heather S.
Both of these essays do provide some solid evidence as to why racial profiling could work. They do also give evidence as to why it won't work. I, for one, believe that it could be useful if used correctly. This means that, instead of pulling aside every person who fits the OMEA profile, and thus wasting both time and money, those people should be watched until they reach a certain point. At that point, when their passport is checked, as it must be in order for them to enter the country, then they may be pulled aside. If their country of origin is one which is being watched for potential terrosit activity, then they should be questioned. By doing this, it would be far easier to find potential terrosorists with less discrimination. Now, is this a one-size solution? No. Like most issues of this caliber, there is no single solution. To wrap this up, profiling is a useful tool when put to work in the correct way. That is, profiling should be used, but, as Clark said, the racial bias of the process needs to be phased out as time goes on.
Anybody can be a terrorist, and not all terrorists look the same, wear similar clothing, come from the same race, country, or come from the same cultural backgrounds. Although profiling may work at times, there are still terrorists who are not captured. I think everyone as a whole should be checked and not just picked individuals. If you want to keep a terrorist off the plane, then you should just check everybody. A terrorist may be any race, height, or religion. Just check everybody's luggage and the person them self. Yes, it might take a long time but I'd rather it take a while than blow up on a plane because searching everyone was to time consuming.
This is exactly my point. Why take the risk? Why not just check everyone? They already screen people with metal detectors, what's another screening? I'm glad no one here is ignorant enough to think terrorists are exclusive to certain nationalities.
I definitely feel that both paths of racial profiling are ok. That said, the second path of looking into national origin seems like a much more practical way of protecting the nation. In regards to the question of is racial profiling ethical, I kind of have a more harsh view. In my opinion, until thousands of people are killed from racial profiling, it's fair to me. Of course, no people are killed so why is it so controversial? I understand how it could be a huge inconvenience for those affected. They might feel somewhat betrayed and hurt that their country keeps harassing them. However unfair, it seems like if they really love their country then they shouldn't mind it, in order to protect America. I actually think using origin is much more effective way of doing it though. At this point, terrorists aren't idiots. If they plan more attacks, the terrorists aren't going to be wearing burqas screaming "praise allah". They likely won't even look middle eastern. Instead they'll use somebody who looks "European" and likely wouldn't even get a second look if the typical racial profiling was used. If we instead looked into their travel records, nationality, and phone records it would likely be entirely more effective. I think in the end, both are going to be used, and should be until a better way of going about it is developed.
I can see how racial profiling might work. The thing is, this is a problem because obviously people get offended, as just because a person looks Middle-Eastern does not mean they're a terrorist. But looking at it from the US point of view, what are we supposed to do? When we've had horrible terrorist attacks by Middle-Easterners. One would think it'd be only natural for us to think to look for suspicious Middle-Easterners in airports. Well...I disagree. Why not just screen everyone? Take recent incidents for example: both the Aurora Theater shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting were done by white American people. Granted, these were not terrorist attacks, but they hold the same concept. I think screening everyone would be effective. Some might say, well now EVERYONE might be offended; if they are, they are. Either way, SOMEONE is going to ask why such things are necessary. I think, just as the essays we read have said, it's worth a few offended people to keep terrorists out of the country. Sure this might be tedious, but what's a little more time in the airport? It's already a hassle. But it's okay, because we all want to keep terrorists out of the country.
This is one of those topics that can go either way. On the one hand, racial profiling can be very beneficial because it will give our country more security. However, as was brought out by some, if the racial profiling process is too "intense" then some people may feel their freedom rights being stepped on. I feel as though a balance can be reached, however. One of the essays discussed suspicious behavior as being the first sign. Obviously if this type of behavior is being noticed some action needs to be taken. If a person just looks suspicious simply because of their race or nationality, then action may not be taken..this would be cutting into people's civil rights. Yes, some people are going to be falsley accused. But it is better to be safe than sorry, and even though some people would also be missed, I feel as though this method would work well and give us a secure country, without taking it too far.
I understand that there are many different ways to go about racial profiling. There are a few that I disagree with however. I think the "random" profiling is a wrong way to go about things. The government screens people they believe are random. However, more than likely if you randomly screen someone who we stereotype as terrorists, things may get ugly. I do not think we should just assume people who come from a Muslim background could be a terrorist. I don't think we should look at just religion and origin. I think we should look at past offenses, peculiar behavior, if they have ever threatened the well being of our country, and other suspicious things that make this person seem to be a terrorist. Anyone can be a terrorist, so we can't just stereotype people we think could be one. I believe that terrorists are groups of people who would risk their lives just to hurt large amounts of other people. I think we should do everything possible to protect our country, but there are definitely better ways of going about profiling terrorists.
I think profiling based on national origin along with behavior, flight history, age, and gender would be the most ideal solution. The other possible solutions seem to have bigger risks and flaws: searching everyone results in huge delays, and fairly severe cuts on liberty, general racial profiling results in many falsely accused people (most Arab-Americans), and not profiling at all results in terrorists and criminals getting through the cracks. However, I don't feel informed enough on the subject to determine if this type of profiling would even be possible. Security personel would have to be trained extensively in the behaviors, customs, cultures, dialects etc. of the high risk nations to pick out which people were suspiscious. This would require the security guards to recieve more education and higher pay. In addition, even the most knowledgable guard could misjudge a person becuase of the subjectivity of the system. Bottomline, I feel that racial profiling is a must because as the author of the essay stated, it's not a civil rights issue, but rather a life or death issue. I think the national origin solution should be looked into more in order to determine if it is affordable and effective.
If we have been promised promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the declaration of independence then can't racial profiling be constituted as the government trying to protect our right to life? Terrorists kill Americans. As many as possible, and It's almost impossible to know who's being targeted. It's the same thing as when a women walks home alone late at night in a big city. She scrutinizes every shadow because it's possible ones a man with a gun who wants to rape her. We cannot sit here and judge the validity of racial profiling without addressing that we are judging the worth of every American life. If we stop profiling, statistically we allow more terrorist attacks to happen. I believe both systems are effective and we should use both because you can't be to cautious with American lives. Further, it's normal that terrorists work in groups rather than alone. Profiling these groups is not a horrible idea. It's not like we're strip searching every muslim in an airport. We have technology like a CAPS system to quietly watch everyone. If it protects the lives of Americans I see no problem in any or all systems to be used to profile any and all persons of any suspicious background.
Afer examening the two articles on racial profiling it has become abundantely clear that racial profiling is a tool that can be used to effectively to combat acts of terror against the country. Yes, it is true that profiling can be negative and may possibly violate certains peoples civil rights, but I believe that the positives of profiling outweigh the negatives greatly. I do believe that profiling needs to be done cautiously as to not violate peoples rights, but I do believe that the violation of a small amount of peoples rights is a fair price for saving thousands of lives.
The biggest question raised in the profiling articles we read were whether we should ruin reputations and possibly violate rights to save what could be hundreds of thousands of lives, or refrain from racially profiling and let what could be one or two terrorists slip by and face the consiquences. So what is the answer? The answer I feel is best is the first senario. Although we may ruin 5 citizien's reputation out of millions, we can save a significant number of lifes, and for me it is worth the sacrifice. Many raise the question about the violation of rights. Isn't it also our right to be kept safe in our own country? Giving up a small amount of these rights is a sacrifice any American should be willing to take in order to possibly save thousands of people. Racial profiling should be set in motion because the consequences of not racially profiling could be and will be much more damaging than a couple of ruined reputations and small violations.
After reading two essays about racial profiling, I believe that everyone should be screened. Terrorists come in any shape, form, background and racial profile, anyone out there could be a terrorist and some are getting by because they don't fit the "terrorist" look. I believe it is important to screen everyone to ensure the safety of everyone so lives can be saved, we don't want a terrorist slipping right under our noses. Some people believe that this is a violation of their rights and it is unjust to screeen them. But by taking the next step and screening everyone can ensure that many lives can be saved. Which is more important, having that small right or saving millions of lives? -Shannon Lussier
Profiling passengers based on things like flight histor age and ethnicity seems to be the best and only way to go when it comes to anti-terrorist security. Aside from that there is little we can doaside from searching every peice of luggage and every bad which is just unreasonable. The problem faced with this profilin, especially prior to the september 11th attacks is profiling based on race. People of Middle Eastern appearance in particular were singled out which often left them feeling disrespected. Honestly though, if I were OMEA I dont think I would be offended if I was searched at an airport. I would take it as an extra safety percausion. While this is a tough break for Middle Eastern people, it is statistically the safest way to go about the matter. Therefore racial profiling seems to be the best way to go forward with. -Love Dan
Profiling is what will grant us definite safety. However, there are indeed too many problems with targeting everyone. It seemed in the essays that a focus on characteristics other than race, were least offensive. These traits, already mentioned, being flight history, national origin, and gender are important too note. I want to see an increased focus from airport personnel to identify these and track people that seem to carry a high risk. It is unrealistic too check everyone so thoroughly, there is not enough time. In the same way we can't prevent every car accident, suicide, or shooting everyday. Racial profiling alone doesn't protect us from, "Swiss girl scouts" as the author mentioned, but the likely hood one would terrorize is certainly low. So the traits then are determined, and they are the most realistic chance we have at stopping terrorist threats.
Racial Profiling After reading both essays I feel that the second essay presents a better method on how to deal with racial profiling to prevent the amount of terrorists that come into our country. The United States has every reason to be cautious. After the devastating 9/11 attack keeping this country safe of terrorists is a “life or death” situation. Using the national origin method to point out certain characteristics like clothing, language, age and other physical features will help airport security identify terrorists. Not any staff member in the airport can just point out who they think might be a treat to our nation. A certain group of staff members should be specifically trained in how to identify people’s national origin. If airports can have a training program to do that I think that the national origin systems will really help with preventing terrorists from entering our country. Payton
I believe that profiling should be used based on national origin, travel history, and suspicious behavior. While in theory the most effective way to prevent terrorism would be to thoroughly search each and every passenger, the truth is that this would be extremely inefficient and time-consuming. The CAPS system is a good way to screen all passengers quickly and to a lesser extent, but I believe that passengers who fit certain criteria (nationality, behavior, etc) of those who may pose a threat to security should be pulled aside for more careful screenings. Yes, this is a violation of civil rights. However, it is a fair price to pay for the safety of the passengers who this person will be flying with.
If people expect 100% security and safety, then everyone will need to make sacrifices. There is probably not one person who has lost someone to violence that would say getting to my meeting was more important than the screening that could have taken place in order to prevent the violence. I bet if you asked each person getting on an air plane if they wanted to all be thoroughly searched or risk being hijacked, the answer would be unanimous. The problem with racial profiling is in the name itself. It's based solely on race. While this is effective to some degree, we aren't trying to protect Americans from one type of person, but all of the bad guys. And as seen in the recent CT shootings, it's not just race that "makes" someone a terrorist. In an ideal world we would be able to protect everyone, this is only possible if everyone is screened. If this is not, however, something the people are willing to do. They should no expect the security they ignorantly believe they are owed
After reading both essays I have come to the conclusion that racial profiling is a technique that will inevitably be used. As much as it may be unfair to those who could be wrongly targeted, it’s necessary. There comes a time when one must look at the security and safety of a country as a whole. The discomfort of a select group of people is less important than public safety. The groups that we see as a threat to our nation are constantly changing. During WWII it was the Japanese, now it's Muslims. If in the future the majority of terrorist attacks were done by blonde haired, blue eyed people, then I would be hassled incessantly when travelling. As much as I would get annoyed, I would understand the reason behind it. My comfort would not be a priority when an entire country’s safety could be at risk.
So far in class we have read two different essays. So far, both have concluded that racial profiling is necessary to keep this nation safe, but it will violate many people's rights. I think it's necessary to have body scanners wherever they feel are needed. This is because I would rather be safe than sorry. Evidently, it is clear that middle eastern people have been a target for this profiling. And since they have been the cause of the terrorism in our country of late, it is only fair that they accept our concerns to stay safe - even if it means pulling all of them aside. Our nation has come to a critical point in history. Protecting the citizens is the number one priority. It will only take one attempt to attack and people will automatically be grateful. Profiling people is by all means necessary. The pros outweigh the complaints.
Look, it is evident that racial profiling would stop terrorist attacks from happening a lot more. Unfortunately, doing this process would cause other forms of attack to happen because the people being profiled would not feel equal from everybody else. We cannot go around accusing people of being terrorists when we could be protecting ourselves in a different way. After the unexpected attack on 9-11, we should have taken into account that we should have protection instead of profiling the people we think are going to attack us. It is only a matter of time with racial profiling that we get attacked by someone else who we did not accuse. love joe d
From the two separate essays we read racial profiling would be a great answer to combating terrorism. As a nation that has been the victim of terrorist attacks from a people of a certain demographic we can combat terrorism by scanning and searching the demographic that has been associated with terrorism. I agree with Padraig in the fact that I would rather be safe than sorry, a few angry people is generally a better alternative than a terrorist attack. As a nation we should protect each other and make that our first priority. Since the horrible attack on 9/11 racial profiling has kept our nation from experiencing another and therefore should be one of our main ways of combating terrorism.
After reading the two diffrent essays about racial profiling, it is pretty obvious that racial profiling will stop many terrorists. They also pointed out that many people's rights would be violated in the process. In my opinion i think that is a cost that the country needs to get over. The way i see it, we can let people fly without racial profiling and all it takes is one time for thousands of to die as we all know. We have to protect our whole country for that one attack even if it means falsely accusing certian people. It is our governments job to protect our country and if they let people go through with the possibility that the could be a terrorist then they arn't doing their job right.
ReplyDeleteNick, in class today you suggested screening everyone. Would this be something you would support instead of any other kind of profiling?
DeleteThere is no easy answer or solution to how to balance freedom and security. Obviously if you lean too far in one direction or another, certain founding aspects we have created start to be lost. In my opinion, I think that racial profiling can be used, but not as the sole way to root out threats. In one of the essays, it was proposed that suspicious behavior should be the first sign, and then all other types of profiling, including racially, would be to follow. I think that this method would allow for the best balance of using information that we know to target terrorists, while still being cautious of peoples' civil rights. If people are not engaging in suspicious behavior, there will be no reason to target them. However, as soon as someone does something that draws attention to them, their race, age, national origin, and would all be factors in deciding if authorities should take the next step. Obviously some people would slip through the cracks this way, and some people would be falsely accused, but I think that this is the best way between to extremes.
ReplyDelete-McKenzie
It's tough to know what the best solution would be to terrorism as we haven't developed a system that is fairly affective yet. After reading the second essay though, I was persuaded to look in the direction of national origin. I think this would be the most affective system in part because national origin identifies many features or characteristics that we're looking for. I don't know if this system could be technology based but I think it could be pulled off with a well trained staff. Airport security cannot be loosely trained as this is the whole point of their job, which is to look for the red flags. If the staff can be trained to look for things like language, certain clothing, and behavior that pertain to the Islamic extremists that usually have been the terrorists, then that would be ideal. It's affective to look for these extremist qualities because their beliefs and followings are what usually make them do these terror acts. At the same time, we also have to be aware that there are terrorists out there that aren't Islamic extremists. They could just be hired by a certain group to deceive security. For these situations, security should be trained to look for suspicious behavior more so because the person likely wouldn't be used to the task and therefore might slip up. If we can achieve these goals for smarter security then I believe that it would be an affective system to combat terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I definitely think using national origin would be the best way to go because of all the reasons you stated in your post. However, I also think we should use racial profiling with national origin because some terrorists are "of Middle Eastern appearance." Although racial profiling does violate people's rights, it is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our country.
DeleteI agree with you both here, I think it comes down to a choice between safety and rights. As long as we do it professionally and politely I think a little extra time in customs is a small price to pay if it means the safety of a much larger group. National origin will not be offending American citizens just because they look "of middle eastern appearance". In places like Europe this is a common thing, i think we are behind the rest of the world here.
DeleteChris Darroch
I feel this topic is so controversial because we all want to feel protected living in our own country, yet in order to do so, the government may have to take away some of the very freedoms it stands for. In my opinion we should not use racial profiling as a "step in security check lines". I feel this way because 1. it completely violates the civil liberties of the parties involved 2. it slows down the system for everyone else 3. it will inevitably end up classifying people who may almost appear "OMEA", but really are not 4. Even though it's supposed to make people feel safer, I think it will make them more paranoid and racist towards this origin of people. With this said, I feel that the current system in place works sufficiently well. It is computer run, therefore not wasting the resources of a human work force, and it fairly successful. Sure, every time you fly there is a minuscule risk of there being a terrorist aboard. Just as every time you drive, go to a restaurant, visit another country, you can be running the same risk.
ReplyDelete-Jess
After reading both essays, I think racial profiling will prevent further terrorist attacks. I think profiling coupled with National Origin could prove to be an effective tactic. As for the infringement on people's rights, that is just something people are not used to. Flyers are not used to waiting in slower security lines when before 9/11 they could walk through security in no time at all. But now when you go, it takes some time to go through. It is not like when TSA asks you to open your bag their suspecting you of being a terrorist, they are just doing their job in ensuring the safety of all flyers and trying to prevent another underpants bomber. The use of a National Origins type process would help combat terrorism because it aspects of it are used today. When going through security the people verifying the ticket sometimes ask "why are you going" if the place is not visited often. This is simply a matter of giving people a sense of security when flying, a sense of security that was taken from the American people after 9/11
ReplyDeleteBoth essays present clear benefits and detriments to racial profiling. However, the facts shown towards the ineffectiveness of racial profiling seem too overwhelming for me to be in support of it. In recent times, most fail to realize that terrorists can come in all shapes and sizes. Racial profiling may help quench the hysteria created from the attacks on 9/11, but in actuality, it is wasting the time and destroying the faith of most law-abiding ‘OMEA’ peoples. I feel that a better use of time would be towards developing a better ‘CAPS’ (Computer Aided Passenger Screening) system. ‘CAPS’ (with some more development and fine tuning) has the potential to be much more effective and objective in screening and thus, would not violate the rights of most average citizens.
ReplyDeleteBottom line: Do I think profiling/screening should be eliminated completely? No. However, I feel the racial bias needs to be phased out of it.
Clark
I think we should use a couple different methods to prevent terrorist attacks. For instance, I think racial profiling should only be used if it is combined with profiling based on national origin. Screening people based solely on race not only makes the system look very bad (since many people’s rights will be violated in the process), but it is also only somewhat effective considering the fact that not all Middle Eastern looking people are terrorists and not all terrorists are "of Middle Eastern appearance." If we screen people who are coming from places that harbor terrorists and screen people who look Middle Eastern, we would probably find more terrorists than if we only screened people of Middle Eastern appearance, since terrorists are most likely coming from an area of the world in which terrorist groups assemble to make plans and some terrorists do happen to be of Middle Eastern appearance. I think we should try a couple different methods of profiling so we can more accurately decide which method(s) is/are the most effective and which is/are the least effective.
ReplyDelete-Heather S.
Both of these essays do provide some solid evidence as to why racial profiling could work. They do also give evidence as to why it won't work. I, for one, believe that it could be useful if used correctly. This means that, instead of pulling aside every person who fits the OMEA profile, and thus wasting both time and money, those people should be watched until they reach a certain point. At that point, when their passport is checked, as it must be in order for them to enter the country, then they may be pulled aside. If their country of origin is one which is being watched for potential terrosit activity, then they should be questioned. By doing this, it would be far easier to find potential terrosorists with less discrimination. Now, is this a one-size solution? No. Like most issues of this caliber, there is no single solution.
ReplyDeleteTo wrap this up, profiling is a useful tool when put to work in the correct way. That is, profiling should be used, but, as Clark said, the racial bias of the process needs to be phased out as time goes on.
Anybody can be a terrorist, and not all terrorists look the same, wear similar clothing, come from the same race, country, or come from the same cultural backgrounds. Although profiling may work at times, there are still terrorists who are not captured. I think everyone as a whole should be checked and not just picked individuals. If you want to keep a terrorist off the plane, then you should just check everybody. A terrorist may be any race, height, or religion. Just check everybody's luggage and the person them self. Yes, it might take a long time but I'd rather it take a while than blow up on a plane because searching everyone was to time consuming.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly my point. Why take the risk? Why not just check everyone? They already screen people with metal detectors, what's another screening? I'm glad no one here is ignorant enough to think terrorists are exclusive to certain nationalities.
DeleteI definitely feel that both paths of racial profiling are ok. That said, the second path of looking into national origin seems like a much more practical way of protecting the nation. In regards to the question of is racial profiling ethical, I kind of have a more harsh view. In my opinion, until thousands of people are killed from racial profiling, it's fair to me. Of course, no people are killed so why is it so controversial? I understand how it could be a huge inconvenience for those affected. They might feel somewhat betrayed and hurt that their country keeps harassing them. However unfair, it seems like if they really love their country then they shouldn't mind it, in order to protect America.
ReplyDeleteI actually think using origin is much more effective way of doing it though. At this point, terrorists aren't idiots. If they plan more attacks, the terrorists aren't going to be wearing burqas screaming "praise allah". They likely won't even look middle eastern. Instead they'll use somebody who looks "European" and likely wouldn't even get a second look if the typical racial profiling was used. If we instead looked into their travel records, nationality, and phone records it would likely be entirely more effective. I think in the end, both are going to be used, and should be until a better way of going about it is developed.
I can see how racial profiling might work. The thing is, this is a problem because obviously people get offended, as just because a person looks Middle-Eastern does not mean they're a terrorist. But looking at it from the US point of view, what are we supposed to do? When we've had horrible terrorist attacks by Middle-Easterners. One would think it'd be only natural for us to think to look for suspicious Middle-Easterners in airports. Well...I disagree. Why not just screen everyone? Take recent incidents for example: both the Aurora Theater shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting were done by white American people. Granted, these were not terrorist attacks, but they hold the same concept. I think screening everyone would be effective. Some might say, well now EVERYONE might be offended; if they are, they are. Either way, SOMEONE is going to ask why such things are necessary. I think, just as the essays we read have said, it's worth a few offended people to keep terrorists out of the country. Sure this might be tedious, but what's a little more time in the airport? It's already a hassle. But it's okay, because we all want to keep terrorists out of the country.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those topics that can go either way. On the one hand, racial profiling can be very beneficial because it will give our country more security. However, as was brought out by some, if the racial profiling process is too "intense" then some people may feel their freedom rights being stepped on. I feel as though a balance can be reached, however. One of the essays discussed suspicious behavior as being the first sign. Obviously if this type of behavior is being noticed some action needs to be taken. If a person just looks suspicious simply because of their race or nationality, then action may not be taken..this would be cutting into people's civil rights. Yes, some people are going to be falsley accused. But it is better to be safe than sorry, and even though some people would also be missed, I feel as though this method would work well and give us a secure country, without taking it too far.
ReplyDeleteI understand that there are many different ways to go about racial profiling. There are a few that I disagree with however. I think the "random" profiling is a wrong way to go about things. The government screens people they believe are random. However, more than likely if you randomly screen someone who we stereotype as terrorists, things may get ugly. I do not think we should just assume people who come from a Muslim background could be a terrorist. I don't think we should look at just religion and origin. I think we should look at past offenses, peculiar behavior, if they have ever threatened the well being of our country, and other suspicious things that make this person seem to be a terrorist. Anyone can be a terrorist, so we can't just stereotype people we think could be one. I believe that terrorists are groups of people who would risk their lives just to hurt large amounts of other people. I think we should do everything possible to protect our country, but there are definitely better ways of going about profiling terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI think profiling based on national origin along with behavior, flight history, age, and gender would be the most ideal solution. The other possible solutions seem to have bigger risks and flaws: searching everyone results in huge delays, and fairly severe cuts on liberty, general racial profiling results in many falsely accused people (most Arab-Americans), and not profiling at all results in terrorists and criminals getting through the cracks. However, I don't feel informed enough on the subject to determine if this type of profiling would even be possible. Security personel would have to be trained extensively in the behaviors, customs, cultures, dialects etc. of the high risk nations to pick out which people were suspiscious. This would require the security guards to recieve more education and higher pay. In addition, even the most knowledgable guard could misjudge a person becuase of the subjectivity of the system. Bottomline, I feel that racial profiling is a must because as the author of the essay stated, it's not a civil rights issue, but rather a life or death issue. I think the national origin solution should be looked into more in order to determine if it is affordable and effective.
ReplyDeleteIf we have been promised promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the declaration of independence then can't racial profiling be constituted as the government trying to protect our right to life? Terrorists kill Americans. As many as possible, and It's almost impossible to know who's being targeted. It's the same thing as when a women walks home alone late at night in a big city. She scrutinizes every shadow because it's possible ones a man with a gun who wants to rape her. We cannot sit here and judge the validity of racial profiling without addressing that we are judging the worth of every American life. If we stop profiling, statistically we allow more terrorist attacks to happen. I believe both systems are effective and we should use both because you can't be to cautious with American lives. Further, it's normal that terrorists work in groups rather than alone. Profiling these groups is not a horrible idea. It's not like we're strip searching every muslim in an airport. We have technology like a CAPS system to quietly watch everyone. If it protects the lives of Americans I see no problem in any or all systems to be used to profile any and all persons of any suspicious background.
ReplyDeleteAfer examening the two articles on racial profiling it has become abundantely clear that racial profiling is a tool that can be used to effectively to combat acts of terror against the country. Yes, it is true that profiling can be negative and may possibly violate certains peoples civil rights, but I believe that the positives of profiling outweigh the negatives greatly. I do believe that profiling needs to be done cautiously as to not violate peoples rights, but I do believe that the violation of a small amount of peoples rights is a fair price for saving thousands of lives.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest question raised in the profiling articles we read were whether we should ruin reputations and possibly violate rights to save what could be hundreds of thousands of lives, or refrain from racially profiling and let what could be one or two terrorists slip by and face the consiquences. So what is the answer? The answer I feel is best is the first senario. Although we may ruin 5 citizien's reputation out of millions, we can save a significant number of lifes, and for me it is worth the sacrifice. Many raise the question about the violation of rights. Isn't it also our right to be kept safe in our own country? Giving up a small amount of these rights is a sacrifice any American should be willing to take in order to possibly save thousands of people. Racial profiling should be set in motion because the consequences of not racially profiling could be and will be much more damaging than a couple of ruined reputations and small violations.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading two essays about racial profiling, I believe that everyone should be screened. Terrorists come in any shape, form, background and racial profile, anyone out there could be a terrorist and some are getting by because they don't fit the "terrorist" look. I believe it is important to screen everyone to ensure the safety of everyone so lives can be saved, we don't want a terrorist slipping right under our noses. Some people believe that this is a violation of their rights and it is unjust to screeen them. But by taking the next step and screening everyone can ensure that many lives can be saved. Which is more important, having that small right or saving millions of lives?
ReplyDelete-Shannon Lussier
Profiling passengers based on things like flight histor age and ethnicity seems to be the best and only way to go when it comes to anti-terrorist security. Aside from that there is little we can doaside from searching every peice of luggage and every bad which is just unreasonable. The problem faced with this profilin, especially prior to the september 11th attacks is profiling based on race. People of Middle Eastern appearance in particular were singled out which often left them feeling disrespected. Honestly though, if I were OMEA I dont think I would be offended if I was searched at an airport. I would take it as an extra safety percausion. While this is a tough break for Middle Eastern people, it is statistically the safest way to go about the matter. Therefore racial profiling seems to be the best way to go forward with. -Love Dan
ReplyDeleteProfiling is what will grant us definite safety. However, there are indeed too many problems with targeting everyone. It seemed in the essays that a focus on characteristics other than race, were least offensive. These traits, already mentioned, being flight history, national origin, and gender are important too note. I want to see an increased focus from airport personnel to identify these and track people that seem to carry a high risk. It is unrealistic too check everyone so thoroughly, there is not enough time. In the same way we can't prevent every car accident, suicide, or shooting everyday. Racial profiling alone doesn't protect us from, "Swiss girl scouts" as the author mentioned, but the likely hood one would terrorize is certainly low. So the traits then are determined, and they are the most realistic chance we have at stopping terrorist threats.
ReplyDeleteRacial Profiling
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both essays I feel that the second essay presents a better method on how to deal with racial profiling to prevent the amount of terrorists that come into our country. The United States has every reason to be cautious. After the devastating 9/11 attack keeping this country safe of terrorists is a “life or death” situation. Using the national origin method to point out certain characteristics like clothing, language, age and other physical features will help airport security identify terrorists. Not any staff member in the airport can just point out who they think might be a treat to our nation. A certain group of staff members should be specifically trained in how to identify people’s national origin. If airports can have a training program to do that I think that the national origin systems will really help with preventing terrorists from entering our country.
Payton
I believe that profiling should be used based on national origin, travel history, and suspicious behavior. While in theory the most effective way to prevent terrorism would be to thoroughly search each and every passenger, the truth is that this would be extremely inefficient and time-consuming. The CAPS system is a good way to screen all passengers quickly and to a lesser extent, but I believe that passengers who fit certain criteria (nationality, behavior, etc) of those who may pose a threat to security should be pulled aside for more careful screenings. Yes, this is a violation of civil rights. However, it is a fair price to pay for the safety of the passengers who this person will be flying with.
ReplyDeleteIf people expect 100% security and safety, then everyone will need to make sacrifices. There is probably not one person who has lost someone to violence that would say getting to my meeting was more important than the screening that could have taken place in order to prevent the violence. I bet if you asked each person getting on an air plane if they wanted to all be thoroughly searched or risk being hijacked, the answer would be unanimous. The problem with racial profiling is in the name itself. It's based solely on race. While this is effective to some degree, we aren't trying to protect Americans from one type of person, but all of the bad guys. And as seen in the recent CT shootings, it's not just race that "makes" someone a terrorist. In an ideal world we would be able to protect everyone, this is only possible if everyone is screened. If this is not, however, something the people are willing to do. They should no expect the security they ignorantly believe they are owed
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both essays I have come to the conclusion that racial profiling is a technique that will inevitably be used. As much as it may be unfair to those who could be wrongly targeted, it’s necessary. There comes a time when one must look at the security and safety of a country as a whole. The discomfort of a select group of people is less important than public safety. The groups that we see as a threat to our nation are constantly changing. During WWII it was the Japanese, now it's Muslims. If in the future the majority of terrorist attacks were done by blonde haired, blue eyed people, then I would be hassled incessantly when travelling. As much as I would get annoyed, I would understand the reason behind it. My comfort would not be a priority when an entire country’s safety could be at risk.
ReplyDeleteSo far in class we have read two different essays. So far, both have concluded that racial profiling is necessary to keep this nation safe, but it will violate many people's rights. I think it's necessary to have body scanners wherever they feel are needed. This is because I would rather be safe than sorry. Evidently, it is clear that middle eastern people have been a target for this profiling. And since they have been the cause of the terrorism in our country of late, it is only fair that they accept our concerns to stay safe - even if it means pulling all of them aside. Our nation has come to a critical point in history. Protecting the citizens is the number one priority. It will only take one attempt to attack and people will automatically be grateful. Profiling people is by all means necessary. The pros outweigh the complaints.
ReplyDeleteLook, it is evident that racial profiling would stop terrorist attacks from happening a lot more. Unfortunately, doing this process would cause other forms of attack to happen because the people being profiled would not feel equal from everybody else. We cannot go around accusing people of being terrorists when we could be protecting ourselves in a different way. After the unexpected attack on 9-11, we should have taken into account that we should have protection instead of profiling the people we think are going to attack us. It is only a matter of time with racial profiling that we get attacked by someone else who we did not accuse.
ReplyDeletelove joe d
From the two separate essays we read racial profiling would be a great answer to combating terrorism. As a nation that has been the victim of terrorist attacks from a people of a certain demographic we can combat terrorism by scanning and searching the demographic that has been associated with terrorism. I agree with Padraig in the fact that I would rather be safe than sorry, a few angry people is generally a better alternative than a terrorist attack. As a nation we should protect each other and make that our first priority. Since the horrible attack on 9/11 racial profiling has kept our nation from experiencing another and therefore should be one of our main ways of combating terrorism.
ReplyDelete